Targeted Maximum Likelihood Based Causal Inference

Given causal graph assumptions, intervention-specific counterfactual distributions of the data can be defined by the so called G-computation formula, which is obtained by carrying out these interventions on the likelihood of the data factorized according to the causal graph. The obtained G-computation formula represents the counterfactual distribution the data would have had if this intervention would have been enforced on the system generating the data. A causal effect of interest can now be defined as some difference between these counterfactual distributions indexed by different interventions. For example, the interventions can represent static treatment regimens or individualized treatment rules that assign treatment in response to time-dependent covariates, and the causal effects could be defined in terms of features of the mean of the treatment-regimen specific counterfactual outcome of interest as a function of the corresponding treatment regimens. Such features could be defined nonparametrically in terms of so called (nonparametric) marginal structural models for static or individualized treatment rules, whose parameters can be thought of as (smooth) summary measures of differences between the treatment regimen specific counterfactual distributions. In this article, we provide templates for implementation of the targeted maximum likelihood estimator of causal effects of multiple time point interventions. This involves the use of loss-based super-learning to obtain an initial estimate of the unknown factors of the G-computation formula, and subsequently, applying a target-parameter specific optimal fluctuation function (least favorable parametric submodel) to each estimated factor, estimating the fluctuation parameter(s) with maximum likelihood estimation, and iterating this updating step till convergence. The targeted maximum likelihood step makes the resulting estimator of the causal effect double robust in the sense that it is consistent if either the initial estimator is consistent, or the estimator of the optimal fluctuation function is consistent. The optimal fluctuation function is correctly specified if the conditional distributions of the nodes in the causal graph one intervenes upon are correctly specified. The latter conditional distributions often comprise the so called treatment and censoring mechanism. Selection among different targeted maximum likelihood estimators (e.g., indexed by different initial estimators) can be based on loss-based crossvalidation such as likelihood based cross-validation or cross-validation based on another appropriate loss function for the distribution of the data. Some specific loss functions are mentioned in this article. In this article, a variety of interesting observations about targeted maximum likelihood estimation are made, and a concrete template for the practical implementation of targeted maximum likelihood estimation is presented as well. In addition, we demonstrate it for estimation of a causal effect of dynamic treatment rules defined in terms of a marginal structural working model, inspired by HIV applications.

[1]  M. J. van der Laan,et al.  Leisure-time Physical Activity and All-cause Mortality in an Elderly Cohort , 2009, Epidemiology.

[2]  Readings in Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation , 2009 .

[3]  M. Laan,et al.  Selecting Optimal Treatments Based on Predictive Factors , 2009 .

[4]  James M. Robins,et al.  On Profile Likelihood: Comment , 2000 .

[5]  J. Robins,et al.  Recovery of Information and Adjustment for Dependent Censoring Using Surrogate Markers , 1992 .

[6]  M. J. Laan,et al.  Construction of Counterfactuals and the G-computation Formula , 2002 .

[7]  Mark J van der Laan,et al.  Biomarker discovery using targeted maximum‐likelihood estimation: Application to the treatment of antiretroviral‐resistant HIV infection , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  James M. Robins,et al.  Coarsening at Random: Characterizations, Conjectures, Counter-Examples , 1997 .

[9]  M. J. van der Laan,et al.  The International Journal of Biostatistics Targeted Maximum Likelihood Learning , 2011 .

[10]  M. J. van der Laan,et al.  The International Journal of Biostatistics Collaborative Double Robust Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation , 2011 .

[11]  Mark J van der Laan,et al.  Empirical Efficiency Maximization: Improved Locally Efficient Covariate Adjustment in Randomized Experiments and Survival Analysis , 2008, The international journal of biostatistics.

[12]  K. Do,et al.  Efficient and Adaptive Estimation for Semiparametric Models. , 1994 .

[13]  Mark J. van der Laan,et al.  Application of Time-to-Event Methods in the Assessment of Safety in Clinical Trials , 2009 .

[14]  J. Robins A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period—application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect , 1986 .

[15]  M. J. Laan Causal Effect Models for Intention to Treat and Realistic Individualized Treatment Rules , 2006 .

[16]  S. Murphy,et al.  Optimal dynamic treatment regimes , 2003 .

[17]  M. J. van der Laan,et al.  Simple Optimal Weighting of Cases and Controls in Case-Control Studies , 2008, The international journal of biostatistics.

[18]  J. Robins,et al.  Marginal Structural Models and Causal Inference in Epidemiology , 2000, Epidemiology.

[19]  Mark J. van der Laan,et al.  Why prefer double robust estimators in causal inference , 2005 .

[20]  S. Murphy,et al.  An experimental design for the development of adaptive treatment strategies , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[21]  Steven G. Deeks,et al.  The Risk of Virologic Failure Decreases with Duration of HIV Suppression, at Greater than 50% Adherence to Antiretroviral Therapy , 2009, PloS one.

[22]  M. J. Laan,et al.  Double Robust Estimation in Longitudinal Marginal Structural Models , 2006 .

[23]  Marshall M Joffe,et al.  History-Adjusted Marginal Structural Models and Statically-Optimal Dynamic Treatment Regimens , 2005 .

[24]  S. Keleş,et al.  Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology Asymptotic Optimality of Likelihood-Based Cross-Validation , 2011 .

[25]  M. J. van der Laan,et al.  Statistical methods for analyzing sequentially randomized trials. , 2007, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[26]  Aad van der Vaart,et al.  The Cross-Validated Adaptive Epsilon-Net Estimator , 2006 .

[27]  Mark J. van der Laan,et al.  Estimation based on case-control designs with known prevalence probability. , 2008 .

[28]  J. Robins,et al.  Marginal structural models to estimate the causal effect of zidovudine on the survival of HIV-positive men. , 2000, Epidemiology.

[29]  M. J. van der Laan,et al.  Analysis of longitudinal marginal structural models. , 2004, Biostatistics.

[30]  H. Strasser Efficient and adaptive estimation for semiparametric models - P. J. Bickel; Ch. A. J. Klaassen; Ya 'acov Ritov; J. A. Wellner. , 1997 .

[31]  S. Dudoit,et al.  Unified Cross-Validation Methodology For Selection Among Estimators and a General Cross-Validated Adaptive Epsilon-Net Estimator: Finite Sample Oracle Inequalities and Examples , 2003 .

[32]  James M. Robins,et al.  Unified Methods for Censored Longitudinal Data and Causality , 2003 .

[33]  Niels Keiding,et al.  Statistical Models Based on Counting Processes , 1993 .

[34]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[35]  Philip W. Lavori,et al.  A design for testing clinical strategies: biased adaptive within‐subject randomization , 2000 .

[36]  Niels Keiding,et al.  Coarsening at random in general sample spaces and random censoring in continuous time , 1995 .

[37]  Jasjeet S. Sekhon,et al.  Multivariate and Propensity Score Matching Software with Automated Balance Optimization: The Matching Package for R , 2008 .

[38]  D. Rubin,et al.  Ignorability and Coarse Data , 1991 .

[39]  Ree Dawson,et al.  Dynamic treatment regimes: practical design considerations , 2004, Clinical trials.

[40]  H. Sung,et al.  Evaluating multiple treatment courses in clinical trials. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[41]  M. J. van der Laan,et al.  The International Journal of Biostatistics Causal Effect Models for Realistic Individualized Treatment and Intention to Treat Rules , 2011 .

[42]  Mark J. van der Laan,et al.  Targeted Methods for Biomarker Discovery, the Search for a Standard , 2008 .

[43]  James M. Robins,et al.  Marginal Structural Models versus Structural nested Models as Tools for Causal inference , 2000 .

[44]  M J van der Laan,et al.  Covariate adjustment in randomized trials with binary outcomes: Targeted maximum likelihood estimation , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[45]  Sherri Rose,et al.  The International Journal of Biostatistics Why Match ? Investigating Matched Case-Control Study Designs with Causal Effect Estimation , 2011 .

[46]  Daniel Weintraub,et al.  Effectiveness of atypical antipsychotic drugs in patients with Alzheimer's disease. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[47]  Mark J van der Laan,et al.  Super Learning: An Application to the Prediction of HIV-1 Drug Resistance , 2007, Statistical applications in genetics and molecular biology.

[48]  Peter J. Bickel,et al.  INFERENCE FOR SEMIPARAMETRIC MODELS: SOME QUESTIONS AND AN ANSWER , 2001 .

[49]  A. V. D. Vaart,et al.  Oracle inequalities for multi-fold cross validation , 2006 .

[50]  S. Dudoit,et al.  Asymptotics of cross-validated risk estimation in estimator selection and performance assessment , 2005 .

[51]  J M Robins,et al.  Marginal Mean Models for Dynamic Regimes , 2001, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[52]  J. Pearl Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference , 2000 .

[53]  James M. Robins,et al.  Causal Inference from Complex Longitudinal Data , 1997 .

[54]  Mark J. van der Laan,et al.  History-Adjusted Marginal Structural Models: Time-Varying Effect Modification , 2005 .

[55]  J. Robins,et al.  Estimation and extrapolation of optimal treatment and testing strategies , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[56]  James M. Robins,et al.  Optimal Structural Nested Models for Optimal Sequential Decisions , 2004 .

[57]  G. Imbens,et al.  Large Sample Properties of Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects , 2004 .

[58]  D. Rubin Matched Sampling for Causal Effects , 2006 .